“Drawing” a man off his feet at the ruck

[Locke]

I was in the middle for a grassroots men’s game yesterday. Blue are in possession, red makes a tackle. Red arriving player approaches the tackle area as if he’s going to poach/contest. Red bends down quickly touches blue tackled player and immediately starts backing off. Blue supported my player arrives at this moment and dives through the ruck trying to clear red player.
I immediately penalized blue for leaving his feet.

A couple blue players complain that red player making it appear that he’s going to contest the ruck but not doing so has “drawn” the blue player off his feet and red can be penalized for this because “they outlawed that years ago”.

I’ve never heard this before and am not aware of anything in law or convention to support this. I’m comfortable concluding it’s nonsense but curious if anyone has even heard this line of thinking?

 

[Decorily]

Sounds like you could have avoided penalising for off feet if I'm visualising correctly. Was the player going off their feet material....did he prevent a fair contest?

Edit....There is no obligation on either side to 'take' contact at the ruck

 

[Dickie E]

I see this on occasion. I would generally not penalise as the blue player has made a genuine attempt to contest the ruck. I would expect him/her to then move away promptly

 

[SimonSmith]

Sometimes it's good to fall back on the classics.
Was his body shape plane flying, plane taking off, or plane landing?

If it was plane landing, it's a PK< regardless of the opposition. If it's plane flying - that is, back generally flat - and there was no intention to seal off, I'd be inclined to breathe a bit and look at other contributory factors.

 

[didds]

A couple blue players complain that red player making it appear that he’s going to contest the ruck but not doing so has “drawn” the blue player off his feet and red can be penalized for this because “they outlawed that years ago”.

Ignoring whether it was a tactic to draw blue off their feet - its blue's very VERY poor contact technique that did that.

"Planes taking off" means (s)he stays on their feet. "Planes landing" and on the deck they go.

PK as given, be better next time.

UPDATE: what simon said.

 

[Stu10]

This is one of the primary differences between grass roots and elite rugby, IMHO. I expect players to approach the ruck in a relatively controlled manner, whereas elite level don't seem to care about players going off feet.

 

[Locke]

I appreciate all the feedback and context re materiality and plane flight angles

I would say blue player was overall plane taking off angle initially but also that he actually “took off” resulting in no part of his body touching the ground as he dove until gravity brought him back to earth beyond the ruck.

No one else from red was contesting and he didn’t seal off so I agree that materiality for that ruck low. I’m curious on thoughts here around “materiality” for this game as a whole. For me, the technique was bad and blatantly illegal. While it did not affect the outcome of this particular ruck, my current position is that not penalizing something so obvious may encourage more poor/illegal contests at the ruck (as players internalize you can dive across and get away with it) and open me up to unnecessary inconsistency in application, whether real or perceived (as I or the teams struggle to differentiate which instances of diving should be penalized).

I’d rather send the clear message that you have to at least attempt to stay on your feet as you enter the ruck, regardless of what your opponent is doing. Am I missing a bigger forest for one group of trees?

 

[Decorily]

I appreciate all the feedback and context re materiality and plane flight angles

I would say blue player was overall plane taking off angle initially but also that he actually “took off” resulting in no part of his body touching the ground as he dove until gravity brought him back to earth beyond the ruck.

No one else from red was contesting and he didn’t seal off so I agree that materiality for that ruck low. I’m curious on thoughts here around “materiality” for this game as a whole. For me, the technique was bad and blatantly illegal. While it did not affect the outcome of this particular ruck, my current position is that not penalizing something so obvious may encourage more poor/illegal contests at the ruck (as players internalize you can dive across and get away with it) and open me up to unnecessary inconsistency in application, whether real or perceived (as I or the teams struggle to differentiate which instances of diving should be penalized).

I’d rather send the clear message that you have to at least attempt to stay on your feet as you enter the ruck, regardless of what your opponent is doing. Am I missing a bigger forest for one group of trees?

I'd suggest looking at your management/ communication. If the offence is not material I would suggest a quick word on the hoof or at downtime to remind players of their obligations and your expectations.

 

[didds]

I would say blue player was overall plane taking off angle initially but also that he actually “took off” resulting in no part of his body touching the ground as he dove until gravity brought him back to earth beyond the ruck.

Then that's still crap technique. Once the feet have left the ground all that is left is momentum - and now no control over whjat happens next.. Whereas feet on the ground provides initial momentum, AND subsequent driving - or moving if the target moves .

 

[SimonSmith]

I appreciate all the feedback and context re materiality and plane flight angles

I would say blue player was overall plane taking off angle initially but also that he actually “took off” resulting in no part of his body touching the ground as he dove until gravity brought him back to earth beyond the ruck.

No one else from red was contesting and he didn’t seal off so I agree that materiality for that ruck low. I’m curious on thoughts here around “materiality” for this game as a whole. For me, the technique was bad and blatantly illegal. While it did not affect the outcome of this particular ruck, my current position is that not penalizing something so obvious may encourage more poor/illegal contests at the ruck (as players internalize you can dive across and get away with it) and open me up to unnecessary inconsistency in application, whether real or perceived (as I or the teams struggle to differentiate which instances of diving should be penalized).

I’d rather send the clear message that you have to at least attempt to stay on your feet as you enter the ruck, regardless of what your opponent is doing. Am I missing a bigger forest for one group of trees?

That's a different question then. If he was actually off feet, flying into the ruck, then I'd PK him, regardless of what Red were doing.

 

[Dickie E]

That's a different question then. If he was actually off feet, flying into the ruck, then I'd PK him, regardless of what Red were doing.

agree. Dangerous ruck entry should be penalised irrespective of the presence of a target